> vrs wrote:
> > Actually, it technically makes both parties in violation of their user
> > agreement with eBay.
>
> Here's the user agreement:
> http://pages.ebay.com/help/policies/user-agreement.html
> Which section or provision are you claiming would be violated? I don't
> see anything applicable, but perhaps I skimmed it too quickly.
"5.5 Manipulation. Neither you, bidders nor sellers may manipulate the price
of any item nor may you interfere with other user's listings or
transactions."
"9 Breach. Without limiting other remedies, we may limit your activity,
immediately remove your bids or item listings, warn our community of your
actions, issue a warning, temporarily suspend, indefinitely suspend or
terminate your membership and refuse to provide our services to you if:
[snip] (c) we believe that your actions may cause financial loss or legal
liability for you, our users or us."
> > At the very least, that would be ethically marginal
> > (since they lied to eBay).
>
> Lied to eBay about *what*?
Their agreement to abide by the restriction on manipulating prices.
> > I do consider collusion to keep the price down to be slightly unethical,
>
> I don't. If we knew that Ford was only going to build three Excursions
> in 2005, and that you, Joe, Fred and I each wanted one, it wouldn't be
> unethical for me to choose not to buy one, even knowing that the
> 25% drop in demand would reduce the amount of money Ford could expect
> to receive per car (theoretically, in an efficient market). I don't see
> how the fact that it's an auction makes any difference.
If it caused Ford to make fewer cars next year, rather than more, would that
make a difference?
Vince
Received on Fri Feb 11 2005 - 23:41:30 GMT